JUDGMENT :

J. Nisha Banu, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.

PRAYER: Appeal - filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, setting aside the order dated 15.04.2013 passed in I.A.No.165/2011 in O.S.No.40 of 2010 by District Court, Sivagangai with costs.

This appeal has been filed against the rejection of plaint ordered by the Court below under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC mainly on the ground that there was no cause of action for the plaintiff to maintain the suit.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of declaration to declare that the suit property is the property of the Trust and for a consequential direction to the defendant to reconvey the suit property to the plaintiff Trust and for permanent injunction directing the defendant or his men or agents not to encumber or alienate the suit property.

3. The plaintiff laid the suit mainly on the ground that the Trust called as Gomathy Trust was instituted by the plaintiff and his family members in the year 1984 and the property purchased by the plaintiff was brought in as a Trust property.

4. The responsibility for running the Trust was handed over to the Trustees and one of the Trustee in connivance with the defendant was alleged to have misused and taken hold of the funds of the Trust and the property was bought in the names of the defendant and his wife. It is this property, which is shown as the suit property in this case. In view of the same, a police complaint was also given and investigation was pending. In the meantime, the suit came to be filed for the reliefs stated supra.

5. A written statement was also filed by the defendant by denying all the allegations and by taking a very specific stand that the defendant has nothing to do with the Trust and he is not even a Trustee in the above said Gomathy Trust and the property was purchased out of the own funds of the defendant.

6. Pleadings were completed and at that point of time, the defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not file any documents to prove that the suit property belongs to the Trust. The defendant took a further stand that without there being any material to show that the suit property belongs to the Trust, there is no cause of action for maintaining the suit and accordingly, the defendant sought for the rejection of the plaint.

7. The Court below, on considering the averments in the plaint and the stand taken by the defendant, came to a conclusion that there was no cause of action for continuing with the suit and accordingly, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.

8. Heard Mr.Anand Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.K.Balasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

9. While considering the application for rejection of plaint, the trial Court is expected to look into the averments made in the plaint and those averments must be taken to be correct. The stand taken by the defendant by challenging the averments in the plaint, can be considered only after the trial is concluded. The trial Court is not expected to go into merits of the pleadings made in the plaint and the trial Court should not take into consideration the defence taken by the defendant while dealing with the application seeking for rejection of plaint.

10. In the present case, the trial Court has specifically gone into the merits of the case. The trial Court, in paragraph 14, has taken into consideration the allegations made by the plaintiff and has come to a conclusion that there is no material to show that the suit property belongs to the Trust. The trial Court also found that since the defendant is not a Trustee, there is no question of misappropriation of funds and the suit property might not have been purchased from the funds of the Gomathy Trust. The trial Court has further held that the criminal c